The State-Centric Approach to Preventing Political Violence: An International Framework
Author: Nevil D’Cunha1
1Department of International Relations & Diplomacy, Faculty of Administrative Sciences, Tishk International University, Erbil, Iraq
Abstract: This article takes the declared goal of preventing violent political conflicts as a starting point. Today, the whole world is starving for peace: from Somalia to Syria, from Sierra Leone to Libya, political violence is the plague of our age. At the outset, the concept of violence itself needs to be considered. The general view is that violence entails the use of physical force, usually with the purpose of injuring or damaging the target of the violence. In the political world, the weapons of such violence can range from gunshots, flying fists, and nuclear missiles to chemical agents. The central actor in violent political conflicts is usually the ‘state.’ Prevention entails attempting everything to enable nations to avert the outbreak of emergencies that take a high toll on humanity, undermining institutions, and capacities to achieve development and peace. In order to continually achieve this task, robust mechanisms to prevent future conflict risks needs to be put in place. In an interdependent world, this means that for preventing political violent conflicts there is a dire need for an international architecture that works across countries and refocused on prevention rather than containment. This paper proposes to do a thematic analysis of the joint United Nations and World Bank Report on preventing violent conflict in the light of political violence expounded by Danziger. This thematic analysis can enable us to understand both the anatomy of political violence and the international architecture to prevent their future occurrence. This study can make a significant contribution to address the immense challenges facing collective humanity’s contemporary quest for peace.
Keywords: State-centrism, Political Violence, Violence Prevention International Tools, Quest for Peace
References
Böhmelt, T., Bove, V., & Glenditsch, K. S. (2019). Blame the victims? Refugees, state capacity, and non-state actor violence. Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 56 (1) 73-87.
Danziger, J. N. (2012). Understanding the Political World: An Introduction to Political Science. (11 Ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
D’Cunha, N. (2017a). Political and Socioeconomic Development of Africa: Potential and Challenges. IJMER. Vol. 6, Issue 11 (5), November.
D’Cunha, N. (2017b). Africa’s Political Underdevelopment: Is Europe Responsible? IJMER. Vol. 6, Issue 12 (5), December.
Gordon, G. M. & Young, L. E. (2017). Cooperation, information, and keeping the peace: Civilian engagement with peacekeepers in Haiti. Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 54 (1) 64-79.
Hirose, K., Imai, K. & Lyall, J. (2017). Can civilian attitudes predict insurgent violence? Ideology and insurgent tactical choice in civil war. Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 54 (1) 47-63.
Ibrahim, M.A. (2012). Thematic Analysis: A Critical Review of its Process and Evaluation. West East Journal of Social Sciences. Vol.1 (1).
Institute for Economics & Peace. (2018a). Global Peace Index 2018: Measuring Peace in a Complex World. Available from: https://visionofhumanity.org/reports (accessed 10-03-2019).
Institute for Economics & Peace. (2018b). Global Terrorism Index 2018: Measuring the impact of terrorism. Available from: https://visionofhumanity.org/reports (accessed 11-03-2019).
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J.M., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. Vol. 16: 1-13.
United Nations and World Bank. (2018). Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
Visits: 13